fscrypt: write CBC-CTS instead of CTS-CBC

Calling CBC with ciphertext stealing "CBC-CTS" seems to be more common
than calling it "CTS-CBC". E.g., CBC-CTS is used by OpenSSL, Crypto++,
RFC3962, and RFC6803. The NIST SP800-38A addendum uses CBC-CS1,
CBC-CS2, and CBC-CS3, distinguishing between different CTS conventions
but similarly putting the CBC part first. In the interest of avoiding
any idiosyncratic terminology, update the fscrypt documentation and the
fscrypt_mode "friendly names" to align with the more common convention.

Changing the "friendly names" only affects some log messages. The
actual mode constants in the API are unchanged; those call it simply
"CTS". Add a note to the documentation that clarifies that "CBC" and
"CTS" in the API really mean CBC-ESSIV and CBC-CTS, respectively.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240224053550.44659-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: document that CephFS supports fscrypt now

The help text for CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION and the fscrypt.rst documentation
file both list the filesystems that support fscrypt. CephFS added
support for fscrypt in v6.6, so add CephFS to the list.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231227045158.87276-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt.rst: update definition of struct fscrypt_context_v2

Get the copy of the fscrypt_context_v2 definition in the documentation
in sync with the actual definition, which was changed recently by
commit 5b1188847180 ("fscrypt: support crypto data unit size less than
filesystem block size").

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231206001901.14371-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: track master key presence separately from secret

Master keys can be in one of three states: present, incompletely
removed, and absent (as per FSCRYPT_KEY_STATUS_* used in the UAPI).
Currently, the way that "present" is distinguished from "incompletely
removed" internally is by whether ->mk_secret exists or not.

With extent-based encryption, it will be necessary to allow per-extent
keys to be derived while the master key is incompletely removed, so that
I/O on open files will reliably continue working after removal of the
key has been initiated. (We could allow I/O to sometimes fail in that
case, but that seems problematic for reasons such as writes getting
silently thrown away and diverging from the existing fscrypt semantics.)
Therefore, when the filesystem is using extent-based encryption,
->mk_secret can't be wiped when the key becomes incompletely removed.

As a prerequisite for doing that, this patch makes the "present" state
be tracked using a new field, ->mk_present. No behavior is changed yet.

The basic idea here is borrowed from Josef Bacik's patch
"fscrypt: use a flag to indicate that the master key is being evicted"
(https://lore.kernel.org/r/e86c16dddc049ff065f877d793ad773e4c6bfad9.1696970227.git.josef@toxicpanda.com).
I reimplemented it using a "present" bool instead of an "evicted" flag,
fixed a couple bugs, and tried to update everything to be consistent.

Note: I considered adding a ->mk_status field instead, holding one of
FSCRYPT_KEY_STATUS_*. At first that seemed nice, but it ended up being
more complex (despite simplifying FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_KEY_STATUS),
since it would have introduced redundancy and had weird locking rules.

Reviewed-by: Neal Gompa <neal@gompa.dev>
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231015061055.62673-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: support crypto data unit size less than filesystem block size

Until now, fscrypt has always used the filesystem block size as the
granularity of file contents encryption. Two scenarios have come up
where a sub-block granularity of contents encryption would be useful:

1. Inline crypto hardware that only supports a crypto data unit size
that is less than the filesystem block size.

2. Support for direct I/O at a granularity less than the filesystem
block size, for example at the block device's logical block size in
order to match the traditional direct I/O alignment requirement.

(1) first came up with older eMMC inline crypto hardware that only
supports a crypto data unit size of 512 bytes. That specific case
ultimately went away because all systems with that hardware continued
using out of tree code and never actually upgraded to the upstream
inline crypto framework. But, now it's coming back in a new way: some
current UFS controllers only support a data unit size of 4096 bytes, and
there is a proposal to increase the filesystem block size to 16K.

(2) was discussed as a "nice to have" feature, though not essential,
when support for direct I/O on encrypted files was being upstreamed.

Still, the fact that this feature has come up several times does suggest
it would be wise to have available. Therefore, this patch implements it
by using one of the reserved bytes in fscrypt_policy_v2 to allow users
to select a sub-block data unit size. Supported data unit sizes are
powers of 2 between 512 and the filesystem block size, inclusively.
Support is implemented for both the FS-layer and inline crypto cases.

This patch focuses on the basic support for sub-block data units. Some
things are out of scope for this patch but may be addressed later:

- Supporting sub-block data units in combination with
FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAG_IV_INO_LBLK_64, in most cases. Unfortunately this
combination usually causes data unit indices to exceed 32 bits, and
thus fscrypt_supported_policy() correctly disallows it. The users who
potentially need this combination are using f2fs. To support it, f2fs
would need to provide an option to slightly reduce its max file size.

- Supporting sub-block data units in combination with
FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAG_IV_INO_LBLK_32. This has the same problem
described above, but also it will need special code to make DUN
wraparound still happen on a FS block boundary.

- Supporting use case (2) mentioned above. The encrypted direct I/O
code will need to stop requiring and assuming FS block alignment.
This won't be hard, but it belongs in a separate patch.

- Supporting this feature on filesystems other than ext4 and f2fs.
(Filesystems declare support for it via their fscrypt_operations.)
On UBIFS, sub-block data units don't make sense because UBIFS encrypts
variable-length blocks as a result of compression. CephFS could
support it, but a bit more work would be needed to make the
fscrypt_*_block_inplace functions play nicely with sub-block data
units. I don't think there's a use case for this on CephFS anyway.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230925055451.59499-6-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: improve the "Encryption modes and usage" section

As the number of supported encryption modes has grown, the part of the
"Encryption modes and usage" section that describes the supported
encryption modes has gotten a bit messy. It presents useful
information, but it's a bit lacking in high-level context.

Rework the section to hopefully be much more useful.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230630064811.22569-2-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: support decrypting data from large folios

Try to make the filesystem-level decryption functions in fs/crypto/
aware of large folios. This includes making fscrypt_decrypt_bio()
support the case where the bio contains large folios, and making
fscrypt_decrypt_pagecache_blocks() take a folio instead of a page.

There's no way to actually test this with large folios yet, but I've
tested that this doesn't cause any regressions.

Note that this patch just handles *decryption*, not encryption which
will be a little more difficult.

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230127224202.355629-1-ebiggers@kernel.org

fscrypt: add additional documentation for SM4 support

Add a paragraph about SM4, like there is for the other modes.

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201191452.6557-1-ebiggers@kernel.org

fscrypt: Add SM4 XTS/CTS symmetric algorithm support

Add support for XTS and CTS mode variant of SM4 algorithm. The former is
used to encrypt file contents, while the latter (SM4-CTS-CBC) is used to
encrypt filenames.

SM4 is a symmetric algorithm widely used in China, and is even mandatory
algorithm in some special scenarios. We need to provide these users with
the ability to encrypt files or disks using SM4-XTS.

Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221201125819.36932-3-tianjia.zhang@linux.alibaba.com

fscrypt: Add HCTR2 support for filename encryption

HCTR2 is a tweakable, length-preserving encryption mode that is intended
for use on CPUs with dedicated crypto instructions. HCTR2 has the
property that a bitflip in the plaintext changes the entire ciphertext.
This property fixes a known weakness with filename encryption: when two
filenames in the same directory share a prefix of >= 16 bytes, with
AES-CTS-CBC their encrypted filenames share a common substring, leaking
information. HCTR2 does not have this problem.

More information on HCTR2 can be found here: "Length-preserving
encryption with HCTR2": https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/1441.pdf

Signed-off-by: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

fs: Add read_folio documentation

Convert all the ->readpage documentation to ->read_folio.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>

fscrypt: update documentation for direct I/O support

Now that direct I/O is supported on encrypted files in some cases,
document what these cases are.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220128233940.79464-6-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: allow 256-bit master keys with AES-256-XTS

fscrypt currently requires a 512-bit master key when AES-256-XTS is
used, since AES-256-XTS keys are 512-bit and fscrypt requires that the
master key be at least as long any key that will be derived from it.

However, this is overly strict because AES-256-XTS doesn't actually have
a 512-bit security strength, but rather 256-bit. The fact that XTS
takes twice the expected key size is a quirk of the XTS mode. It is
sufficient to use 256 bits of entropy for AES-256-XTS, provided that it
is first properly expanded into a 512-bit key, which HKDF-SHA512 does.

Therefore, relax the check of the master key size to use the security
strength of the derived key rather than the size of the derived key
(except for v1 encryption policies, which don't use HKDF).

Besides making things more flexible for userspace, this is needed in
order for the use of a KDF which only takes a 256-bit key to be
introduced into the fscrypt key hierarchy. This will happen with
hardware-wrapped keys support, as all known hardware which supports that
feature uses an SP800-108 KDF using AES-256-CMAC, so the wrapped keys
are wrapped 256-bit AES keys. Moreover, there is interest in fscrypt
supporting the same type of AES-256-CMAC based KDF in software as an
alternative to HKDF-SHA512. There is no security problem with such
features, so fix the key length check to work properly with them.

Reviewed-by: Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@google.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210921030303.5598-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: improve documentation for inline encryption

Currently the fscrypt inline encryption support is documented in the
"Implementation details" section, and it doesn't go into much detail.
It's really more than just an "implementation detail" though, as there
is a user-facing mount option. Also, hardware-wrapped key support (an
upcoming feature) will depend on inline encryption and will affect the
on-disk format; by definition that's not just an implementation detail.

Therefore, move this documentation into its own section and expand it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210916174928.65529-4-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: align Base64 encoding with RFC 4648 base64url

fscrypt uses a Base64 encoding to encode no-key filenames (the filenames
that are presented to userspace when a directory is listed without its
encryption key). There are many variants of Base64, but the most common
ones are specified by RFC 4648. fscrypt can't use the regular RFC 4648
"base64" variant because "base64" uses the '/' character, which isn't
allowed in filenames. However, RFC 4648 also specifies a "base64url"
variant for use in URLs and filenames. "base64url" is less common than
"base64", but it's still implemented in many programming libraries.

Unfortunately, what fscrypt actually uses is a custom Base64 variant
that differs from "base64url" in several ways:

- The binary data is divided into 6-bit chunks differently.

- Values 62 and 63 are encoded with '+' and ',' instead of '-' and '_'.

- '='-padding isn't used. This isn't a problem per se, as the padding
isn't technically necessary, and RFC 4648 doesn't strictly require it.
But it needs to be properly documented.

There have been two attempts to copy the fscrypt Base64 code into lib/
(https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200821182813.52570-6-jlayton@kernel.org and
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210716110428.9727-5-hare@suse.de), and both
have been caught up by the fscrypt Base64 variant being nonstandard and
not properly documented. Also, the planned use of the fscrypt Base64
code in the CephFS storage back-end will prevent it from being changed
later (whereas currently it can still be changed), so we need to choose
an encoding that we're happy with before it's too late.

Therefore, switch the fscrypt Base64 variant to base64url, in order to
align more closely with RFC 4648 and other implementations and uses of
Base64. However, I opted not to implement '='-padding, as '='-padding
adds complexity, is unnecessary, and isn't required by the RFC.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210718000125.59701-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: remove mention of symlink st_size quirk from documentation

Now that the correct st_size is reported for encrypted symlinks on all
filesystems, update the documentation accordingly.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210702065350.209646-6-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

docs: fs: fscrypt.rst: get rid of :c:type: tags

The :c:type: tag has problems with Sphinx 3.x, as structs
there should be declared with c:struct.

So, remove them, relying at automarkup.py extension to
convert them into cross-references.

Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>

fscrypt: document inline encryption support

Update the fscrypt documentation file for inline encryption support.

Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200724184501.1651378-7-satyat@google.com
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: rename FS_KEY_DERIVATION_NONCE_SIZE

The name "FS_KEY_DERIVATION_NONCE_SIZE" is a bit outdated since due to
the addition of FSCRYPT_POLICY_FLAG_DIRECT_KEY, the file nonce may now
be used as a tweak instead of for key derivation. Also, we're now
prefixing the fscrypt constants with "FSCRYPT_" instead of "FS_".

Therefore, rename this constant to FSCRYPT_FILE_NONCE_SIZE.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200708215722.147154-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: add inline encryption support

Add support for inline encryption to fs/crypto/. With "inline
encryption", the block layer handles the decryption/encryption as part
of the bio, instead of the filesystem doing the crypto itself via
Linux's crypto API. This model is needed in order to take advantage of
the inline encryption hardware present on most modern mobile SoCs.

To use inline encryption, the filesystem needs to be mounted with
'-o inlinecrypt'. Blk-crypto will then be used instead of the traditional
filesystem-layer crypto whenever possible to encrypt the contents
of any encrypted files in that filesystem. Fscrypt still provides the key
and IV to use, and the actual ciphertext on-disk is still the same;
therefore it's testable using the existing fscrypt ciphertext verification
tests.

Note that since blk-crypto has a fallback to Linux's crypto API, and
also supports all the encryption modes currently supported by fscrypt,
this feature is usable and testable even without actual inline
encryption hardware.

Per-filesystem changes will be needed to set encryption contexts when
submitting bios and to implement the 'inlinecrypt' mount option. This
patch just adds the common code.

Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200702015607.1215430-3-satyat@google.com
Co-developed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: add support for IV_INO_LBLK_32 policies

The eMMC inline crypto standard will only specify 32 DUN bits (a.k.a. IV
bits), unlike UFS's 64. IV_INO_LBLK_64 is therefore not applicable, but
an encryption format which uses one key per policy and permits the
moving of encrypted file contents (as f2fs's garbage collector requires)
is still desirable.

To support such hardware, add a new encryption format IV_INO_LBLK_32
that makes the best use of the 32 bits: the IV is set to
'SipHash-2-4(inode_number) + file_logical_block_number mod 2^32', where
the SipHash key is derived from the fscrypt master key. We hash only
the inode number and not also the block number, because we need to
maintain contiguity of DUNs to merge bios.

Unlike with IV_INO_LBLK_64, with this format IV reuse is possible; this
is unavoidable given the size of the DUN. This means this format should
only be used where the requirements of the first paragraph apply.
However, the hash spreads out the IVs in the whole usable range, and the
use of a keyed hash makes it difficult for an attacker to determine
which files use which IVs.

Besides the above differences, this flag works like IV_INO_LBLK_64 in
that on ext4 it is only allowed if the stable_inodes feature has been
enabled to prevent inode numbers and the filesystem UUID from changing.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200515204141.251098-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Reviewed-by: Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: add FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_NONCE ioctl

Add an ioctl FS_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_NONCE which retrieves the nonce from
an encrypted file or directory. The nonce is the 16-byte random value
stored in the inode's encryption xattr. It is normally used together
with the master key to derive the inode's actual encryption key.

The nonces are needed by automated tests that verify the correctness of
the ciphertext on-disk. Except for the IV_INO_LBLK_64 case, there's no
way to replicate a file's ciphertext without knowing that file's nonce.

The nonces aren't secret, and the existing ciphertext verification tests
in xfstests retrieve them from disk using debugfs or dump.f2fs. But in
environments that lack these debugging tools, getting the nonces by
manually parsing the filesystem structure would be very hard.

To make this important type of testing much easier, let's just add an
ioctl that retrieves the nonce.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200314205052.93294-2-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: improve format of no-key names

When an encrypted directory is listed without the key, the filesystem
must show "no-key names" that uniquely identify directory entries, are
at most 255 (NAME_MAX) bytes long, and don't contain '/' or '\0'.
Currently, for short names the no-key name is the base64 encoding of the
ciphertext filename, while for long names it's the base64 encoding of
the ciphertext filename's dirhash and second-to-last 16-byte block.

This format has the following problems:

- Since it doesn't always include the dirhash, it's incompatible with
directories that will use a secret-keyed dirhash over the plaintext
filenames. In this case, the dirhash won't be computable from the
ciphertext name without the key, so it instead must be retrieved from
the directory entry and always included in the no-key name.
Casefolded encrypted directories will use this type of dirhash.

- It's ambiguous: it's possible to craft two filenames that map to the
same no-key name, since the method used to abbreviate long filenames
doesn't use a proper cryptographic hash function.

Solve both these problems by switching to a new no-key name format that
is the base64 encoding of a variable-length structure that contains the
dirhash, up to 149 bytes of the ciphertext filename, and (if any bytes
remain) the SHA-256 of the remaining bytes of the ciphertext filename.

This ensures that each no-key name contains everything needed to find
the directory entry again, contains only legal characters, doesn't
exceed NAME_MAX, is unambiguous unless there's a SHA-256 collision, and
that we only take the performance hit of SHA-256 on very long filenames.

Note: this change does *not* address the existing issue where users can
modify the 'dirhash' part of a no-key name and the filesystem may still
accept the name.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>
[EB: improved comments and commit message, fixed checking return value
of base64_decode(), check for SHA-256 error, continue to set disk_name
for short names to keep matching simpler, and many other cleanups]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200120223201.241390-7-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: clarify what is meant by a per-file key

Now that there's sometimes a second type of per-file key (the dirhash
key), clarify some function names, macros, and documentation that
specifically deal with per-file *encryption* keys.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200120223201.241390-4-ebiggers@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: derive dirhash key for casefolded directories

When we allow indexed directories to use both encryption and
casefolding, for the dirhash we can't just hash the ciphertext filenames
that are stored on-disk (as is done currently) because the dirhash must
be case insensitive, but the stored names are case-preserving. Nor can
we hash the plaintext names with an unkeyed hash (or a hash keyed with a
value stored on-disk like ext4's s_hash_seed), since that would leak
information about the names that encryption is meant to protect.

Instead, if we can accept a dirhash that's only computable when the
fscrypt key is available, we can hash the plaintext names with a keyed
hash using a secret key derived from the directory's fscrypt master key.
We'll use SipHash-2-4 for this purpose.

Prepare for this by deriving a SipHash key for each casefolded encrypted
directory. Make sure to handle deriving the key not only when setting
up the directory's fscrypt_info, but also in the case where the casefold
flag is enabled after the fscrypt_info was already set up. (We could
just always derive the key regardless of casefolding, but that would
introduce unnecessary overhead for people not using casefolding.)

Signed-off-by: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>
[EB: improved commit message, updated fscrypt.rst, squashed with change
that avoids unnecessarily deriving the key, and many other cleanups]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200120223201.241390-3-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: don't allow v1 policies with casefolding

Casefolded encrypted directories will use a new dirhash method that
requires a secret key. If the directory uses a v2 encryption policy,
it's easy to derive this key from the master key using HKDF. However,
v1 encryption policies don't provide a way to derive additional keys.

Therefore, don't allow casefolding on directories that use a v1 policy.
Specifically, make it so that trying to enable casefolding on a
directory that has a v1 policy fails, trying to set a v1 policy on a
casefolded directory fails, and trying to open a casefolded directory
that has a v1 policy (if one somehow exists on-disk) fails.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@google.com>
[EB: improved commit message, updated fscrypt.rst, and other cleanups]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200120223201.241390-2-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

ext4: allow ZERO_RANGE on encrypted files

When ext4 encryption support was first added, ZERO_RANGE was disallowed,
supposedly because test failures (e.g. ext4/001) were seen when enabling
it, and at the time there wasn't enough time/interest to debug it.

However, there's actually no reason why ZERO_RANGE can't work on
encrypted files. And it fact it *does* work now. Whole blocks in the
zeroed range are converted to unwritten extents, as usual; encryption
makes no difference for that part. Partial blocks are zeroed in the
pagecache and then ->writepages() encrypts those blocks as usual.
ext4_block_zero_page_range() handles reading and decrypting the block if
needed before actually doing the pagecache write.

Also, f2fs has always supported ZERO_RANGE on encrypted files.

As far as I can tell, the reason that ext4/001 was failing in v4.1 was
actually because of one of the bugs fixed by commit 36086d43f657 ("ext4
crypto: fix bugs in ext4_encrypted_zeroout()"). The bug made
ext4_encrypted_zeroout() always return a positive value, which caused
unwritten extents in encrypted files to sometimes not be marked as
initialized after being written to. This bug was not actually in
ZERO_RANGE; it just happened to trigger during the extents manipulation
done in ext4/001 (and probably other tests too).

So, let's enable ZERO_RANGE on encrypted files on ext4.

Tested with:
gce-xfstests -c ext4/encrypt -g auto
gce-xfstests -c ext4/encrypt_1k -g auto

Got the same set of test failures both with and without this patch.
But with this patch 6 fewer tests are skipped: ext4/001, generic/008,
generic/009, generic/033, generic/096, and generic/511.

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191226154216.4808-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

fscrypt: support passing a keyring key to FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY

Extend the FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl to allow the raw key to be
specified by a Linux keyring key, rather than specified directly.

This is useful because fscrypt keys belong to a particular filesystem
instance, so they are destroyed when that filesystem is unmounted.
Usually this is desired. But in some cases, userspace may need to
unmount and re-mount the filesystem while keeping the keys, e.g. during
a system update. This requires keeping the keys somewhere else too.

The keys could be kept in memory in a userspace daemon. But depending
on the security architecture and assumptions, it can be preferable to
keep them only in kernel memory, where they are unreadable by userspace.

We also can't solve this by going back to the original fscrypt API
(where for each file, the master key was looked up in the process's
keyring hierarchy) because that caused lots of problems of its own.

Therefore, add the ability for FS_IOC_ADD_ENCRYPTION_KEY to accept a
Linux keyring key. This solves the problem by allowing userspace to (if
needed) save the keys securely in a Linux keyring for re-provisioning,
while still using the new fscrypt key management ioctls.

This is analogous to how dm-crypt accepts a Linux keyring key, but the
key is then stored internally in the dm-crypt data structures rather
than being looked up again each time the dm-crypt device is accessed.

Use a custom key type "fscrypt-provisioning" rather than one of the
existing key types such as "logon". This is strongly desired because it
enforces that these keys are only usable for a particular purpose: for
fscrypt as input to a particular KDF. Otherwise, the keys could also be
passed to any kernel API that accepts a "logon" key with any service
prefix, e.g. dm-crypt, UBIFS, or (recently proposed) AF_ALG. This would
risk leaking information about the raw key despite it ostensibly being
unreadable. Of course, this mistake has already been made for multiple
kernel APIs; but since this is a new API, let's do it right.

This patch has been tested using an xfstest which I wrote to test it.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191119222447.226853-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

ext4: Enable encryption for subpage-sized blocks

Now that we have the code to support encryption for subpage-sized
blocks, this commit removes the conditional check in filesystem mount
code.

The commit also changes the support statement in
Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst to reflect the fact that
encryption on filesystems with blocksize less than page size now works.

[EB: Tested with 'gce-xfstests -c ext4/encrypt_1k -g auto', using the
new "encrypt_1k" config I created. All tests pass except for those that
already fail or are excluded with the encrypt or 1k configs, and 2 tests
that try to create 1023-byte symlinks which fails since encrypted
symlinks are limited to blocksize-3 bytes. Also ran the dedicated
encryption tests using 'kvm-xfstests -c ext4/1k -g encrypt'; all pass,
including the on-disk ciphertext verification tests.]

Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191023033312.361355-3-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

fscrypt: add support for IV_INO_LBLK_64 policies

Inline encryption hardware compliant with the UFS v2.1 standard or with
the upcoming version of the eMMC standard has the following properties:

(1) Per I/O request, the encryption key is specified by a previously
loaded keyslot. There might be only a small number of keyslots.

(2) Per I/O request, the starting IV is specified by a 64-bit "data unit
number" (DUN). IV bits 64-127 are assumed to be 0. The hardware
automatically increments the DUN for each "data unit" of
configurable size in the request, e.g. for each filesystem block.

Property (1) makes it inefficient to use the traditional fscrypt
per-file keys. Property (2) precludes the use of the existing
DIRECT_KEY fscrypt policy flag, which needs at least 192 IV bits.

Therefore, add a new fscrypt policy flag IV_INO_LBLK_64 which causes the
encryption to modified as follows:

- The encryption keys are derived from the master key, encryption mode
number, and filesystem UUID.

- The IVs are chosen as (inode_number << 32) | file_logical_block_num.
For filenames encryption, file_logical_block_num is 0.

Since the file nonces aren't used in the key derivation, many files may
share the same encryption key. This is much more efficient on the
target hardware. Including the inode number in the IVs and mixing the
filesystem UUID into the keys ensures that data in different files is
nevertheless still encrypted differently.

Additionally, limiting the inode and block numbers to 32 bits and
placing the block number in the low bits maintains compatibility with
the 64-bit DUN convention (property (2) above).

Since this scheme assumes that inode numbers are stable (which may
preclude filesystem shrinking) and that inode and file logical block
numbers are at most 32-bit, IV_INO_LBLK_64 will only be allowed on
filesystems that meet these constraints. These are acceptable
limitations for the cases where this format would actually be used.

Note that IV_INO_LBLK_64 is an on-disk format, not an implementation.
This patch just adds support for it using the existing filesystem layer
encryption. A later patch will add support for inline encryption.

Reviewed-by: Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@google.com>
Co-developed-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: invoke crypto API for ESSIV handling

Instead of open-coding the calculations for ESSIV handling, use an ESSIV
skcipher which does all of this under the hood. ESSIV was added to the
crypto API in v5.4.

This is based on a patch from Ard Biesheuvel, but reworked to apply
after all the fscrypt changes that went into v5.4.

Tested with 'kvm-xfstests -c ext4,f2fs -g encrypt', including the
ciphertext verification tests for v1 and v2 encryption policies.

Originally-from: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

ext4 crypto: fix to check feature status before get policy

When getting fscrypt policy via EXT4_IOC_GET_ENCRYPTION_POLICY, if
encryption feature is off, it's better to return EOPNOTSUPP instead of
ENODATA, so let's add ext4_has_feature_encrypt() to do the check for
that.

This makes it so that all fscrypt ioctls consistently check for the
encryption feature, and makes ext4 consistent with f2fs in this regard.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
[EB - removed unneeded braces, updated the documentation, and
added more explanation to commit message]
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: document the new ioctls and policy version

Update the fscrypt documentation file to catch up to all the latest
changes, including the new ioctls to manage master encryption keys in
the filesystem-level keyring and the support for v2 encryption policies.

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: use FSCRYPT_ prefix for uapi constants

Prefix all filesystem encryption UAPI constants except the ioctl numbers
with "FSCRYPT_" rather than with "FS_". This namespaces the constants
more appropriately and makes it clear that they are related specifically
to the filesystem encryption feature, and to the 'fscrypt_*' structures.
With some of the old names like "FS_POLICY_FLAGS_VALID", it was not
immediately clear that the constant had anything to do with encryption.

This is also useful because we'll be adding more encryption-related
constants, e.g. for the policy version, and we'd otherwise have to
choose whether to use unclear names like FS_POLICY_V1 or inconsistent
names like FS_ENCRYPTION_POLICY_V1.

For source compatibility with existing userspace programs, keep the old
names defined as aliases to the new names.

Finally, as long as new names are being defined anyway, I skipped
defining new names for the fscrypt mode numbers that aren't actually
used: INVALID (0), AES_256_GCM (2), AES_256_CBC (3), SPECK128_256_XTS
(7), and SPECK128_256_CTS (8).

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: document testing with xfstests

Document how to test ext4, f2fs, and ubifs encryption with xfstests.

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: remove selection of CONFIG_CRYPTO_SHA256

fscrypt only uses SHA-256 for AES-128-CBC-ESSIV, which isn't the default
and is only recommended on platforms that have hardware accelerated
AES-CBC but not AES-XTS. There's no link-time dependency, since SHA-256
is requested via the crypto API on first use.

To reduce bloat, we should limit FS_ENCRYPTION to selecting the default
algorithms only. SHA-256 by itself isn't that much bloat, but it's
being discussed to move ESSIV into a crypto API template, which would
incidentally bring in other things like "authenc" support, which would
all end up being built-in since FS_ENCRYPTION is now a bool.

For Adiantum encryption we already just document that users who want to
use it have to enable CONFIG_CRYPTO_ADIANTUM themselves. So, let's do
the same for AES-128-CBC-ESSIV and CONFIG_CRYPTO_SHA256.

Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: return -EXDEV for incompatible rename or link into encrypted dir

Currently, trying to rename or link a regular file, directory, or
symlink into an encrypted directory fails with EPERM when the source
file is unencrypted or is encrypted with a different encryption policy,
and is on the same mountpoint. It is correct for the operation to fail,
but the choice of EPERM breaks tools like 'mv' that know to copy rather
than rename if they see EXDEV, but don't know what to do with EPERM.

Our original motivation for EPERM was to encourage users to securely
handle their data. Encrypting files by "moving" them into an encrypted
directory can be insecure because the unencrypted data may remain in
free space on disk, where it can later be recovered by an attacker.
It's much better to encrypt the data from the start, or at least try to
securely delete the source data e.g. using the 'shred' program.

However, the current behavior hasn't been effective at achieving its
goal because users tend to be confused, hack around it, and complain;
see e.g. https://github.com/google/fscrypt/issues/76. And in some cases
it's actually inconsistent or unnecessary. For example, 'mv'-ing files
between differently encrypted directories doesn't work even in cases
where it can be secure, such as when in userspace the same passphrase
protects both directories. Yet, you *can* already 'mv' unencrypted
files into an encrypted directory if the source files are on a different
mountpoint, even though doing so is often insecure.

There are probably better ways to teach users to securely handle their
files. For example, the 'fscrypt' userspace tool could provide a
command that migrates unencrypted files into an encrypted directory,
acting like 'shred' on the source files and providing appropriate
warnings depending on the type of the source filesystem and disk.

Receiving errors on unimportant files might also force some users to
disable encryption, thus making the behavior counterproductive. It's
desirable to make encryption as unobtrusive as possible.

Therefore, change the error code from EPERM to EXDEV so that tools
looking for EXDEV will fall back to a copy.

This, of course, doesn't prevent users from still doing the right things
to securely manage their files. Note that this also matches the
behavior when a file is renamed between two project quota hierarchies;
so there's precedent for using EXDEV for things other than mountpoints.

xfstests generic/398 will require an update with this change.

[Rewritten from an earlier patch series by Michael Halcrow.]

Cc: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@google.com>
Cc: Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option

In order to have a common code base for fscrypt "post read" processing
for all filesystems which support encryption, this commit removes
filesystem specific build config option (e.g. CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION)
and replaces it with a build option (i.e. CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION) whose
value affects all the filesystems making use of fscrypt.

Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra <chandan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>

fscrypt: add Adiantum support

Add support for the Adiantum encryption mode to fscrypt. Adiantum is a
tweakable, length-preserving encryption mode with security provably
reducible to that of XChaCha12 and AES-256, subject to a security bound.
It's also a true wide-block mode, unlike XTS. See the paper
"Adiantum: length-preserving encryption for entry-level processors"
(https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/720.pdf) for more details. Also see
commit 059c2a4d8e16 ("crypto: adiantum - add Adiantum support").

On sufficiently long messages, Adiantum's bottlenecks are XChaCha12 and
the NH hash function. These algorithms are fast even on processors
without dedicated crypto instructions. Adiantum makes it feasible to
enable storage encryption on low-end mobile devices that lack AES
instructions; currently such devices are unencrypted. On ARM Cortex-A7,
on 4096-byte messages Adiantum encryption is about 4 times faster than
AES-256-XTS encryption; decryption is about 5 times faster.

In fscrypt, Adiantum is suitable for encrypting both file contents and
names. With filenames, it fixes a known weakness: when two filenames in
a directory share a common prefix of >= 16 bytes, with CTS-CBC their
encrypted filenames share a common prefix too, leaking information.
Adiantum does not have this problem.

Since Adiantum also accepts long tweaks (IVs), it's also safe to use the
master key directly for Adiantum encryption rather than deriving
per-file keys, provided that the per-file nonce is included in the IVs
and the master key isn't used for any other encryption mode. This
configuration saves memory and improves performance. A new fscrypt
policy flag is added to allow users to opt-in to this configuration.

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

crypto: speck - remove Speck

These are unused, undesired, and have never actually been used by
anybody. The original authors of this code have changed their mind about
its inclusion. While originally proposed for disk encryption on low-end
devices, the idea was discarded [1] in favor of something else before
that could really get going. Therefore, this patch removes Speck.

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-crypto-vger&m=153359499015659

Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Acked-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

fscrypt: add Speck128/256 support

fscrypt currently only supports AES encryption. However, many low-end
mobile devices have older CPUs that don't have AES instructions, e.g.
the ARMv8 Cryptography Extensions. Currently, user data on such devices
is not encrypted at rest because AES is too slow, even when the NEON
bit-sliced implementation of AES is used. Unfortunately, it is
infeasible to encrypt these devices at all when AES is the only option.

Therefore, this patch updates fscrypt to support the Speck block cipher,
which was recently added to the crypto API. The C implementation of
Speck is not especially fast, but Speck can be implemented very
efficiently with general-purpose vector instructions, e.g. ARM NEON.
For example, on an ARMv7 processor, we measured the NEON-accelerated
Speck128/256-XTS at 69 MB/s for both encryption and decryption, while
AES-256-XTS with the NEON bit-sliced implementation was only 22 MB/s
encryption and 19 MB/s decryption.

There are multiple variants of Speck. This patch only adds support for
Speck128/256, which is the variant with a 128-bit block size and 256-bit
key size -- the same as AES-256. This is believed to be the most secure
variant of Speck, and it's only about 6% slower than Speck128/128.
Speck64/128 would be at least 20% faster because it has 20% rounds, and
it can be even faster on CPUs that can't efficiently do the 64-bit
operations needed for Speck128. However, Speck64's 64-bit block size is
not preferred security-wise. ARM NEON also supports the needed 64-bit
operations even on 32-bit CPUs, resulting in Speck128 being fast enough
for our targeted use cases so far.

The chosen modes of operation are XTS for contents and CTS-CBC for
filenames. These are the same modes of operation that fscrypt defaults
to for AES. Note that as with the other fscrypt modes, Speck will not
be used unless userspace chooses to use it. Nor are any of the existing
modes (which are all AES-based) being removed, of course.

We intentionally don't make CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION select
CONFIG_CRYPTO_SPECK, so people will have to enable Speck support
themselves if they need it. This is because we shouldn't bloat the
FS_ENCRYPTION dependencies with every new cipher, especially ones that
aren't recommended for most users. Moreover, CRYPTO_SPECK is just the
generic implementation, which won't be fast enough for many users; in
practice, they'll need to enable CRYPTO_SPECK_NEON to get acceptable
performance.

More details about our choice of Speck can be found in our patches that
added Speck to the crypto API, and the follow-on discussion threads.
We're planning a publication that explains the choice in more detail.
But briefly, we can't use ChaCha20 as we previously proposed, since it
would be insecure to use a stream cipher in this context, with potential
IV reuse during writes on f2fs and/or on wear-leveling flash storage.

We also evaluated many other lightweight and/or ARX-based block ciphers
such as Chaskey-LTS, RC5, LEA, CHAM, Threefish, RC6, NOEKEON, SPARX, and
XTEA. However, all had disadvantages vs. Speck, such as insufficient
performance with NEON, much less published cryptanalysis, or an
insufficient security level. Various design choices in Speck make it
perform better with NEON than competing ciphers while still having a
security margin similar to AES, and in the case of Speck128 also the
same available security levels. Unfortunately, Speck does have some
political baggage attached -- it's an NSA designed cipher, and was
rejected from an ISO standard (though for context, as far as I know none
of the above-mentioned alternatives are ISO standards either).
Nevertheless, we believe it is a good solution to the problem from a
technical perspective.

Certain algorithms constructed from ChaCha or the ChaCha permutation,
such as MEM (Masked Even-Mansour) or HPolyC, may also meet our
performance requirements. However, these are new constructions that
need more time to receive the cryptographic review and acceptance needed
to be confident in their security. HPolyC hasn't been published yet,
and we are concerned that MEM makes stronger assumptions about the
underlying permutation than the ChaCha stream cipher does. In contrast,
the XTS mode of operation is relatively well accepted, and Speck has
over 70 cryptanalysis papers. Of course, these ChaCha-based algorithms
can still be added later if they become ready.

The best known attack on Speck128/256 is a differential cryptanalysis
attack on 25 of 34 rounds with 2^253 time complexity and 2^125 chosen
plaintexts, i.e. only marginally faster than brute force. There is no
known attack on the full 34 rounds.

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

fscrypt: document symlink length restriction

Document that encryption reduces the maximum length of a symlink target
slightly.

Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

fscrypt: add a documentation file for filesystem-level encryption

Perhaps long overdue, add a documentation file for filesystem-level
encryption, a.k.a. fscrypt or fs/crypto/, to the Documentation
directory. The new file is based loosely on the latest version of the
"EXT4 Encryption Design Document (public version)" Google Doc, but with
many improvements made, including:

- Reflect the reality that it is not specific to ext4 anymore.
- More thoroughly document the design and user-visible API/behavior.
- Replace outdated information, such as the outdated explanation of how
encrypted filenames are hashed for indexed directories and how
encrypted filenames are presented to userspace without the key.
(This was changed just before release.)

For now the focus is on the design and user-visible API/behavior, not on
how to add encryption support to a filesystem --- since the internal API
is still pretty messy and any standalone documentation for it would
become outdated as things get refactored over time.

Reviewed-by: Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>